The accountability solution: understanding the audience in securitisation theory by asking a different question

IF 1.8 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Critical Studies on Security Pub Date : 2022-05-04 DOI:10.1080/21624887.2022.2097440
Ana Soares
{"title":"The accountability solution: understanding the audience in securitisation theory by asking a different question","authors":"Ana Soares","doi":"10.1080/21624887.2022.2097440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper stems from two problematic topics encountered in the Copenhagen School’s securitisation theory (ST) scholarship and its developments. The first is the clash of ontologies among the different approaches to the theory, being two of them the political and sociological approaches. The second arises not only from the questioned role of the audience within the theory but also from its imprecise definition even after the advent of what can be called the ‘audience turn’. As some authors have paved the road for a more rigorous definition of the audience, there is still a cognitive gap between the securitising move and its acceptance that needs to be understood in its fullness. Given these points, this work offers a solution for the above conundrums by asking ‘what does securitisation do?’ instead of ‘what is securitisation?’. This shift results in the recognition of the audience’s agency in the form of accountability for accepting the securitising move. Moreover, this new focus stresses the constant motion needed to construct reality, resulting in two more properties credited to the audience’s definition: fluidity and multiplicity. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to emphasise the relevance of securitisation’s transformational power by revising and criticising the polarisation of the current literature, and at the same time to address not only the ‘problem of the audience’ but the cognitive gap within the securitisation process.","PeriodicalId":29930,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2022.2097440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper stems from two problematic topics encountered in the Copenhagen School’s securitisation theory (ST) scholarship and its developments. The first is the clash of ontologies among the different approaches to the theory, being two of them the political and sociological approaches. The second arises not only from the questioned role of the audience within the theory but also from its imprecise definition even after the advent of what can be called the ‘audience turn’. As some authors have paved the road for a more rigorous definition of the audience, there is still a cognitive gap between the securitising move and its acceptance that needs to be understood in its fullness. Given these points, this work offers a solution for the above conundrums by asking ‘what does securitisation do?’ instead of ‘what is securitisation?’. This shift results in the recognition of the audience’s agency in the form of accountability for accepting the securitising move. Moreover, this new focus stresses the constant motion needed to construct reality, resulting in two more properties credited to the audience’s definition: fluidity and multiplicity. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to emphasise the relevance of securitisation’s transformational power by revising and criticising the polarisation of the current literature, and at the same time to address not only the ‘problem of the audience’ but the cognitive gap within the securitisation process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
问责解决方案:通过提出不同的问题来理解证券化理论中的受众
本文源于哥本哈根学派证券化理论及其发展过程中遇到的两个问题。第一种是本体论在不同的理论方法之间的冲突,这是政治和社会学方法中的两种。第二个问题不仅源于观众在理论中的角色受到质疑,还源于其不精确的定义,即使在所谓的“观众转向”出现之后。随着一些作者为更严格地定义受众铺平了道路,证券化举措与其接受度之间仍存在认知差距,需要充分理解。考虑到这些点,这项工作通过询问“证券化做什么?”为上述难题提供了解决方案而不是“什么是证券化?”。这种转变导致受众的代理机构以接受证券化举措的责任形式得到认可。此外,这种新的关注点强调了构建现实所需的持续运动,从而产生了观众定义的另外两个特性:流动性和多样性。因此,本文的目的是通过修订和批评当前文献的两极分化来强调证券化转型力量的相关性,同时不仅要解决“受众问题”,还要解决证券化过程中的认知差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Training on Terra Nullius? A decolonial approach to militarisation in Sápmi and Northern Finland The nutritional turn towards crisis: a critical perspective (In)Security in social media: exploring Israeli and Palestinian narratives Chair in Entebbe Things never remain the same
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1